1. You have chosen to ignore posts from RushThePillPopper. Show RushThePillPopper's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 10:25 AM EST

    In Response to Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS:
    That's fine. If you can't move the ball on a prevent or predictable soft zones, you are pretty bad as an offense and probably shouldn't be in the NFL.   And you should fire your offensive coordinator.
    Posted by BBReigns
    ..speaking of OC's....what's the over/under for O'Brien and his calling a "complete" game? 
     

  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 10:35 AM EST

    I don't know.  How does one do an over/under on something like that anyway?

    It remains a concern, for me, anyway. Everyone is praising this guy when they score 45 points against a bad D, but NY is not a bad D.

    Rexie-poo is a better coordinator than Bill O'Brien, so this is a clear concern for me.

    I would say the Pitt gameplan is a good move, but you can't do that because Revis is clearly much better than Ike Taylor and Bryan McFadden.

    So, I am not sure that should be the approach.

    To me, this is a classic, who wants it more game and it should be a run first gameplan like they did in Week 2 in the first half, and then hit the spread offense in spots later on during certain drives.

    They shoud start their second drive as a no huddle/hurry up. 
     

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from RushThePillPopper. Show RushThePillPopper's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 10:49 AM EST

    In Response to Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS:
    I don't know.  How does one do an over/under on something like that anyway? It remains a concern, for me, anyway. Everyone is praising this guy when they score 45 points against a bad D, but NY is not a bad D. Rexie-poo is a better coordinator than Bill O'Brien, so this is a clear concern for me. I would say the Pitt gameplan is a good move, but you can't do that because Revis is clearly much better than Ike Taylor and Bryan McFadden. So, I am not sure that should be the approach. To me, this is a classic, who wants it more game and it should be a run first gameplan like they did in Week 2 in the first half, and then hit the spread offense in spots later on during certain drives. They shoud start their second drive as a no huddle/hurry up. 
    Posted by BBReigns
    ....poor choice of words. I guess I meant "what are the odds" Anyway, IF the Jets win, it'll be something in the 24-21 range with the difference being no more than 3. Brady is gonna get his yards but it's gonna be up to the Jets D to keep the run game down and not allow the big pass play (YAC). If the Jets can get 150 yards running, it should keep the pass game available for the 7-10 yard gains with some middle range plays tossed in for fun. Brad Smith could be important since he runs 9 out of ten times but in the game against the Dolts last year, he did get the long pass play in. 
     

  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 10:57 AM EST

    I'd bet NE worked a boatload on the Wildcat this week. 

    I don't see NY's run game getting 150 yards.   That's quite bit and I am not buying it.   NE will be up for this game and the crowd will be ramped up.

    Their main focus will be to stop the run. 

    NE did well last time with this in NY, but NY reeled off a few runs against the subpackages.  And that was in the second half after the two Brady INTs.

    This is the part that will be key, clearly.  3rd down D for NE and how Sanchez handles it.

    If I am NE, I'd play run on 3rd downs even in the subpackages because I know they'll be working on defending slants and Keller seams down the middle in practice, so they should be ready for those looks. 

    I cannot see Sanchez getting hot in this game.

    Sorry. I know this is a huge hope for Jets fans, but I need to see this before I believe it.  If  he doesn't have that run and his bread and butter slants/seam passes, he cannot win it on his own.

    I see Dane Fletcher as a possible spy on LT for checkdowns.

    Chung and Guyton will be busy on Keller.
     

  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 11:08 AM EST

    How is he better than Pennington? Pennington was smart, efficient and a pretty good leader.  

    http://www.nfl.com/players/chadpennington/careerstats?id=PEN375096

    Pennington is slightly under a career 2:1 TD/INT ratio (not great) has a carer 90 rating.  If he hadn't had the shoulder issues, I'd bet his TD/INT ratio would be much closer to the 2:1 that you want.

    I am not buying it yet with Sanchez.  He has a good arm and agility, but he's not there yet.

    Sanchez was picked 4th in the draft and has been hyped beyond all belief out of NY.

    This is the same logic with Revis.  He has a great 2009 and is the best CB last year, so all of a sudden he's going to Canton and he's the definitive best CB.

    Revis won't even make the Pro Bowl this year. 

    Next.....

    Sanchez improved from his awful rookie season, but how could he not? He's in his second year, still has a good run game, good TE option, and nice WRs to work with so far.

    He's cut down on his INTs, which is what he needed to do, and that;s a good job by him.

    When he starts to win games without the horeshoe up his buttocks, than I'll tip my cap.

    His D/STs sets him up well, but let's be honest here:

    Mark Sanchez is not going to cupcake into Foxborough, Chicago or Pittsburgh and outduel or even match those QBs, especially in December against QUALITY Ds.

    If he struggles against NE, whose D is worse than Chicago's and Pitt, what's he going to do there?

    The coaches buried him last year behind a run game to help build his confidence, which was a smart move, but at some point you gotta let him loose.

    It';s very telling to me, anyway, that when they came off that Bye week and he couldn';t do anything against GB, it exposed what I thought about him. He's not really a high end, prototypical cerebral QB.

    He's Jay Cutler. Roll em out, get him out of the pocket and simplify the playbook.

     

  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimijazz. Show jimijazz's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 11:19 AM EST


    I agree, the key will be to contain LT and make Sanchez throw the ball. 

    With Holmes and Edwards  and against this defense he will have some success. But if the Pats can keep them is poor field position I doubt he can sustain long drives without Tomlinson working well on screens and draws.  Ninkovich cannot have another poor game against him like in week 2.

    If LT has a big game the Pats lose by 10.   If Sanchez has to carry the load the Pats get 1-2 INTs and win by 7 or more.
     

  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsfansince1966. Show Patsfansince1966's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 11:46 AM EST

    In Response to Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS:
    In Response to Mark Sanchez FACTS : Well his compl% and QB ratings don't seem to effect his throwing TDs in close games which they win.
    Posted by SNAZZYP


    Yes, especially when teams like Houston lie down on defense.
     

  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 11:53 AM EST

    Another pretty important fact is that the Jets are 9-2 without dominating on defense as much as they did last season. That fact does not surprise me given that Sanchez passes th eyeball test - he looks like a winner when it counts and he is not easy to bring down. He has played much better than I expect it. 

    Don't scoff at the eyeball test. Clutch play leads to wins, wins lead to winning seasons, and those become the facts you worship in the history books. 

    Don't get me wrong, he's still a second year guy with a whole lot to prove. To me the biggest fact is that he doesn't yet have nearly as much big game experience as Brady. 

    Let's face it, the Jets are a good team and this is going to be a tough game. I still see the Pats prevailing.


     

  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 12:01 PM EST

    Eyeball test?

    Like a 60 rating in Denver when they won because a dumb DB pulled down Holmes on a Hail Mary?

    Or, when Houston doesn't defend the middle of the field and Jason Allen who was cut by awful Miami's pass D got burned?  That eyeball test?

    Look at these game logs carefully. What stands out to you?

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/gamelog?playerId=12482

    What stands out to me, is when he plays a solid or good defense of a well coached team, and against a solid or GOOD D, he's not only barely mediocre, he's AWFUL.

    Balt, @ Denver, Minny, GB.  Uh-uh.  See a pattern here? These are solid or good Ds.

    He only looks good against BAD defenses.

    That inludes NE in Week 2.

    He blows up against Miami, Buffalo or Houston, but barely eeks by solid or even a bad D like Detroit. AT DETROIT in a dome.

    It gets loud in a dome.

    The eyeball test tells me he's not good in a hostile environment or against a good D.

    He gets credit for winning the games, but when you see him take a sack that puts them out of FG range, throw a dumb INT at the worst time or look worse in the second half of a game or downright BAD in the 4th quarters of games, those are all red flags to me, where he does not pass the eyeball test.



     

  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 12:18 PM EST

    I agree stats can be misleading.  I am going by what I see AND the stats. Both.

    I watch Sanchez for the second half and see him struggle. 

    Do you realize he could not get his team into FG range at home off a Bye week?

    Do you realize if Stuckey does not fumble in Cleveland, that game not only does not go to NY, but without Holmes great, istinctive run through 3 tackles as the Cleveland players all thought he was going to go down, that game possibly ends in a tie?

    I haven't watched every single snap of Sanchez, but if he chokes in NE here, the wheels might come off quicker than Jets fans want to see.

    If he ends up going 2-2 agaisnt NE career and loses again in FOxborough during their SB 2010 season, what is the argument then?


     

  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from lippa. Show lippa's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 12:33 PM EST

           Let this be said as a pats fan though all the losing yrs too!!
    Its a new season yes the paTS 3 SUPERBOWL WINS ARE GREAT no doubt and yes it puts brady as one as the greats with that said,If superbowls our everything  too make it into hof that would exclude dan marino and iam not sticking up for  sanchze at all, just making the point and read what you want into it,
     

  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 2:44 PM EST

    Stop saying it's irrelevant. Contexts in any discussion of course are relevant, especially for adults in adult conversations.

    It's a fact the sky is blue, but it might be grey later if it rains.

    Get it?

    Stop playing troll/other team defender person.

    Sanchez is COMPLETELY OVERHYPED AS IS REVIS AND THE JETS EVEN HAVE REX RYAN MOUTHING OFF TO GET THEIR  TEAM EXCITED TO SELL PSLs.

    OVERRATED.

     

  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsfansince1966. Show Patsfansince1966's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 2:49 PM EST

    In Response to Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS:
     "I think if the Pats had made that FG early in the game they would have won it. Secondly, Mancheese may be 18-9 now but what if the Jests lose ten games in a row?  Then Mancheese is 18-19 and no longer a "winning QB". Wait until Mancheese has a record like Brady's to call him a "winning QB"." What if? What is is as good as a hand full of sh*t.....The FACT is he IS 18-9 as a starting QB. Take your what if and leave it at the door cause it is irrelevant to this conversation.
    Posted by MVPkilla4life


    Then isn't saying "the jests could beat the Pats again?" also irrelevant?  Or is it relevant because you said it is relevant?

    Mancheese is 18-9 and Bledsoe could still be the Pats QB.  Both easily could be different.

    I think if week two is relevant now, then what I said is also relevant.  Go away.
     

  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 2:57 PM EST

    I don't call you a troll, Killa. I said you encourage trolls.

    How many times have you seen Sanchez play this year?  The guy has had a horseshoe up his rectum for a month.
     

  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 2:57 PM EST

    In Response to Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS:
    In Response to Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS : Then isn't saying "the jests could beat the Pats again?" also irrelevant?  Or is it relevant because you said it is relevant? Mancheese is 18-9 and Bledsoe could still be the Pats QB.  Both easily could be different. I think if week two is relevant now, then what I said is also relevant.  Go away.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966


    Are you on medication? 
     

  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 7:44 PM EST

    In Response to Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS:
    How is he better than Pennington? Pennington was smart, efficient and a pretty good leader.   http://www.nfl.com/players/chadpennington/careerstats?id=PEN375096 Pennington is slightly under a career 2:1 TD/INT ratio (not great) has a carer 90 rating.  If he hadn't had the shoulder issues, I'd bet his TD/INT ratio would be much closer to the 2:1 that you want. I am not buying it yet with Sanchez.  He has a good arm and agility, but he's not there yet. Sanchez was picked 4th in the draft and has been hyped beyond all belief out of NY. This is the same logic with Revis.  He has a great 2009 and is the best CB last year, so all of a sudden he's going to Canton and he's the definitive best CB. Revis won't even make the Pro Bowl this year.  Next..... Sanchez improved from his awful rookie season, but how could he not? He's in his second year, still has a good run game, good TE option, and nice WRs to work with so far. He's cut down on his INTs, which is what he needed to do, and that;s a good job by him. When he starts to win games without the horeshoe up his buttocks, than I'll tip my cap. His D/STs sets him up well, but let's be honest here: Mark Sanchez is not going to cupcake into Foxborough, Chicago or Pittsburgh and outduel or even match those QBs, especially in December against QUALITY Ds. If he struggles against NE, whose D is worse than Chicago's and Pitt, what's he going to do there? The coaches buried him last year behind a run game to help build his confidence, which was a smart move, but at some point you gotta let him loose. It';s very telling to me, anyway, that when they came off that Bye week and he couldn';t do anything against GB, it exposed what I thought about him. He's not really a high end, prototypical cerebral QB. He's Jay Cutler. Roll em out, get him out of the pocket and simplify the playbook.
    Posted by BBReigns


    If Pennington had a healthy arm; he might have been a HOF-er. As it was, he was pretty good. Imagine putting Pennington's brain in Jeff Georges's body? Scary thought.

    You're going out on a limb claiming Revis won't make the Pro Bowl. Yes, he's not the guy he was last year.


    You're overlooking what happened after the Ravens game, when the Jets let Sanchez throw downfield more against NE; admittedly, the NE D was green then, and had the maligned Butler starting at that point (Not that NE should give up on Butler; recall Cory Webster of the Giants in '07). Also, those 'lucky' wins were partly a product of Sanchez making big plays at crunch time, and is characteristic of a good team, according to the NFL network. If it was Brady (not that there's any comparison), fans here would be singing his praises.  
     

  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsfansince1966. Show Patsfansince1966's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 8:17 PM EST

    In Response to Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS:
    In Response to Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS : Are you on medication? 
    Posted by BBReigns


    No, are you?

    Why do people think a question like that is "clever"?
     

  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsfansince1966. Show Patsfansince1966's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 8:19 PM EST

    In Response to Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS:
    In Response to Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS : If Pennington had a healthy arm; he might have been a HOF-er. As it was, he was pretty good. Imagine putting Pennington's brain in Jeff Georges's body? Scary thought. You're going out on a limb claiming Revis won't make the Pro Bowl. Yes, he's not the guy he was last year. You're overlooking what happened after the Ravens game, when the Jets let Sanchez throw downfield more against NE; admittedly, the NE D was green then, and had the maligned Butler starting at that point (Not that NE should give up on Butler; recall Cory Webster of the Giants in '07). Also, those 'lucky' wins were partly a product of Sanchez making big plays at crunch time, and is characteristic of a good team, according to the NFL network. If it was Brady (not that there's any comparison), fans here would be singing his praises.  
    Posted by nhsteven


    And how many "decent" QB's have been good for a year or two in the history of the NFL and then vanish?  Don Majkowski, Tony Eason, Tim Couch etc. I could name more.
     

  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 8:39 PM EST

    In Response to Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS:
    In Response to Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS : If Pennington had a healthy arm; he might have been a HOF-er. As it was, he was pretty good. Imagine putting Pennington's brain in Jeff Georges's body? Scary thought. You're going out on a limb claiming Revis won't make the Pro Bowl. Yes, he's not the guy he was last year. You're overlooking what happened after the Ravens game, when the Jets let Sanchez throw downfield more against NE; admittedly, the NE D was green then, and had the maligned Butler starting at that point (Not that NE should give up on Butler; recall Cory Webster of the Giants in '07). Also, those 'lucky' wins were partly a product of Sanchez making big plays at crunch time, and is characteristic of a good team, according to the NFL network. If it was Brady (not that there's any comparison), fans here would be singing his praises.  
    Posted by nhsteven



    What is your point here?  I am not following.

    Revis has gotten burned more than McCourty.  The reality is, McCourty has outplayed Revis in 2010.

     

  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsfansince1966. Show Patsfansince1966's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/3/2010 11:08 PM EST

    Mancheese's idea of a big play at crunch time is a defender allowing the receiver to get outside so the defender can let the receiver get out of bounds and save time for the Jests who have no timeouts.
     

  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from SShoreLurker. Show SShoreLurker's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/4/2010 1:23 AM EST

    BBReigns check-mated by his on King.

    Rule #1 when dealing with BBReigns-- don't disagree with him
    Rule #2  only HE can use Bills words for support of an argument.


    You break these rules.  TROLL!!!
     

  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/4/2010 6:42 AM EST

    In Response to Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS:
    Mancheese's idea of a big play at crunch time is a defender allowing the receiver to get outside so the defender can let the receiver get out of bounds and save time for the Jests who have no timeouts.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966


    How is this Mancheese's idea? That's the defender's mistake and problem, and an NFL QB is supposed to exploit this. Based on this and other posts of yours, you're nuts, and apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that, including Pat fans.
     

  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/4/2010 6:48 AM EST

    In Response to Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS:
    In Response to Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS : And how many "decent" QB's have been good for a year or two in the history of the NFL and then vanish?  Don Majkowski, Tony Eason, Tim Couch etc. I could name more.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966


    Of course, but you're projecting, via your partisan lens, for a change.

    McCourty is good, and Revis was burned a few times when he was hurt earlier in the season; not lately. FWIW, and like it or not, the NFL network roundtable group thinks Revis could become an all time great. Keep suppressing the obvious because of the jersey he wears
     

  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dunnieboy. Show Dunnieboy's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/4/2010 10:09 AM EST

    Mark is a second year QB who is on a really good team. The Jets are FAR superior to the Pats at almost every position ... the exception is QB .. and I agree that is the MOST IMPORTANT position to dominate.

    IF Brady has a sluggish day ... the Jets WILL WIN. If not ... the Pats will win.
     

  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS

    posted at 12/4/2010 11:28 AM EST

    In Response to Re: Mark Sanchez FACTS:
    Mark is a second year QB who is on a really good team. The Jets are FAR superior to the Pats at almost every position ... the exception is QB .. and I agree that is the MOST IMPORTANT position to dominate. IF Brady has a sluggish day ... the Jets WILL WIN. If not ... the Pats will win.
    Posted by Dunnieboy


    Disagree; I don't see the PATS having their 3 year home winning streak broken; not impossible, but not likely.